For the debater who accepts, you can start posting arguments when you post your Round 1. In other words, fire the opening shots. And thanks in advance to the debater who accepts this debate, and make sure you are ready for a good debate.

Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.2.any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months.3.Also called spontaneous abortion. miscarriage ( def. 1 ) .4.an immature and nonviable fetus.5.abortus ( def. 2b ) .

Point 1: The prohibition of abortion will just make more deaths due to abortion. It will be in the same fashion as the prohibition on alcohol in the 1920s. The prohibition of abortion will lead some women to seek "underground" doctors, who will abort illegally. These doctors are usually dangerous for mother and baby. So instead in the style of a regular abortion where only the baby dies, under these circumstances, the chances of the woman dying skyrocket.

Point 2: Prohibiting abortion will just increase crime and poverty. The kind of people that abort are either young or poor. The young will not take care of the baby for society has already cast her out. She will get rid of the baby. The poor will not take care of the baby either. Because poor tends to breed poor. Crime tends to breed crime. If the woman does not abort, the baby could grow up into a criminal, or live an under-privaliged childhood. The baby would be better off not being born. Plus, chances are high that he or she will be murdered when they are older if they are poor and live in a bad part of town.

I might be more busy in the next days. I am on my schools robotics team, and will be busy. But, on the flip side , I will get more chances to get on DDO , due to the room having computers.

-------------------------On to the debate.

Point 1: The prohibition of abortion will just make more deaths due to abortion. It will be in the same fashion as the prohibition on alcohol in the 1920s. The prohibition of abortion will lead some women to seek "underground" doctors, who will abort illegally. These doctors are usually dangerous for mother and baby. So instead in the style of a regular abortion where only the baby dies, under these circumstances, the chances of the woman dying skyrocket.

Now to this to happen, there would have to be a sharp increase in 'fake doctors'. Ron will have to prove this.

Fast fact.

"6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child,"[1]

Point 2: Prohibiting abortion will just increase crime and poverty. The kind of people that abort are either young or poor. The young will not take care of the baby for society has already cast her out. She will get rid of the baby. The poor will not take care of the baby either. Because poor tends to breed poor. Crime tends to breed crime. If the woman does not abort, the baby could grow up into a criminal, or live an under-privaliged childhood. The baby would be better off not being born. Plus, chances are high that he or she will be murdered when they are older if they are poor and live in a bad part of town. "Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%"[2]

52% of women obtaining abortions in the U.S. are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 32% of all abortions; Teenagers obtain 20% and girls under 15 account for 1.2%.[3]

This is a powerful statement. There should be a way you can take care of a baby in most of the situations. Gov't aid anyone?

A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte. When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Emperically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception. [1]

Response to Point 1:
"By 1972, the year before the Roe v. Wade decision, the Centers for Disease Control reported that 39 women died from illegal or self-induced abortions.": http://www.straightdope.com.... Yes, few women were reported to have died from illegal abortions the last full year before Roe vs. Wade. But the key word there is "reported". Hundreds or thousands of deaths could have gone undocumented even in 1972.

Why? Because having an abortion was still not something that people told everyone becuase abortion was still considered immoral by the vast majority of the population (Kind of like gays today). As a result, thousands of women who had abortions did not tell anyone because it would tarnish their reputation forever. So as a result, thousands if not tens of thousands of women went to doctors who would not put the information on the women's abortion on file, unlike a hospital, even several years after Roe vs. Wade. This of course, is illegal. But as abortion became more accepted and widespread, women shifted from these "underground" doctors to hospitals. This is a shot to the whole pro-life argument because if they didn't protest abortion, abortion would not be scrutinized, and women would not seek "underground" doctors.

Since their wasn't really a major crackdown of these "underground" aborters prior to Roe vs. Wade, thousands could have gone undocumented. And once the family learned of the woman's death from an abortion, the family usually hid it, for as the same reasons above, it was illegal and immoral and would tarnish the family name.

So these fake doctors. Are they going to get documented? No. That is the whole point of doing something underground. So it would not be documented. It would take police to find out about the abortion, then to document it on case files. This rarely happens. Plus, the statistics you requested to not exist.

Here are the effects on abortion and crime: "One of the four major factors that decreased crime in the 1990s was abortion: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu....... "The underlying theory rests on two premises: 1) unwanted children are at greater risk for crime, and 2) legalized abortion leads to a reduction in the number of unwanted births." :http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu...... "These children who were born because their mothers were denied an abortion were substantially more likely to be involved in crime, even when controlling for the income, age, education and health of the mother.":http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu....... "For instance, homicide fell 25.9 percent in high-abortion states between 1985 and 1997 compared to an INCREASE of 4.1 percent in low-abortion states. Panel data estimates confirm the strong negative relationship between lagged abortion and crime. An analysis of arrest rates by age reveal that only arrests of those born after abortion legalization are affected by the law change.":http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu....... There are so many great passages on this website to list all here. To have a better understanding of what this article is saying, read the article from the bottom of page 19 to the top of page 21. Also, look at the graphs throughout the article. Here is the article again: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu....... And no, I can not prove the prohibiting abortion would just increase crime and poverty in the United States, but I can prove the legalizing abortion has decreased crime."

Here are the effects of children receiving welfare: "When past and estimated future receipts of AFDC are combined, the estimated average length of stay on AFDC, among those families currently receiving benefits, is 13 years.": http://www.heritage.org.... This quote points to the fact that if a child is on welfare, the child is likely to be on welfare for over half his or her childhood. This suggests that your claim that having children will increase welfare in fact is wrong. Why? Because if they are on welfare, they are likely very poor, and the child will have a bad childhood, and most likely, and bad rest of his life.
"Triples the level of behavioral and emotional problems among children;
Nearly triples the level of teen sexual activity;
Doubles the probability a young woman will have children out of wedlock; and,
Doubles the probability a boy will become a threat to society, engage in criminal activity, and wind up in jail.": http://www.heritage.org....

Not to mention, abortion most certainly increases poverty. If you are single with 3 kids and in poverty, and you end up pregnant, and are denied an abortion, that is another person in poverty.

Response to Point 3:
The law is that abortion is legal. My point was that women have the right to terminate pregnancies that they do not want. It is not the Government's place to take away that right or to enforce moral behavior through the law.

Response to Point 4:
One, your source's website name is pro-life. So voters, please immediately discredit the source as having bias. Two, one of the whole arguments of abortion is when a fetus is considered a human. Pro-Life people usually either say at conception or at some very early milestone. Pro-Choice and everyone else have a variety of different beliefs and thoughts on when a fetus is considered a human. The belief that life begins at conception is not a fact, and is one of the main subjects of this debate. Because if life does not begin at conception, but at some other date of pregnancy, than abortion before that date is not murder.

"Despite the potential that a fetus has for becoming a human being, and its similarities to a human being, we cannot say that a fetus is a human being. A fetus resides in a legal and social no-man's land, where rights and personhood can have no force or meaning, unless women are kept thoroughly oppressed. Plus, there are many significant differences between a born human being and a fetus, which creates reasonable doubt as to its status. Because there can be no consensus on the matter, the value accorded to a fetus is a subjective, personal matter. Individuals, not society as a whole, must choose what the status of a fetus should be, based on their personal beliefs, morality, and circumstances. And ultimately, this choice belongs only to pregnant women.": http://www.abortionaccess.info.... This quote sums it up. The matter of when a fetus is a human is subjective, and will likely never be proven scientifically. But legally, and fetus should not be considered a human with rights. And it is not for us to decide whether a pregnant woman can have an abortion or not. That should be her own decision. We should have no say in an individual's choices, and should stay out of their business.

Defense FU Point 1: Since here, I proved the most likely, the question of when a fetus is a human will probably never be proven using a scientific study, so we must look at the legal aspect, and the legal aspect says no. To save us from drawn out, character wasting link wars, the aspect of when a fetus feels pain is only one side of the when a fetus is a human debate. That is one opinion. We could debate or prove when a fetus has a heartbeat, or when it starts breathing, or when it can survive outside the mother's womb, or even at conception. So when a fetus feels pain is only one (but most important) side of the when a fetus feels pain debate. I want to see how you will handle this issue.

Response to Point 1:"By 1972, the year before the Roe v. Wade decision, the Centers for Disease Control reported that 39 women died from illegal or self-induced abortions.": http://www.straightdope.com....... Yes, few women were reported to have died from illegal abortions the last full year before Roe vs. Wade. But the key word there is "reported". Hundreds or thousands of deaths could have gone undocumented even in 1972.

I dont like Ron's source. I'm just saying. 100,000 is also alot of deaths to miss.

Point 2: Prohibiting abortion will just increase crime and poverty. The kind of people that abort are either young or poor. The young will not take care of the baby for society has already cast her out. She will get rid of the baby. The poor will not take care of the baby either. Because poor tends to breed poor. Crime tends to breed crime. If the woman does not abort, the baby could grow up into a criminal, or live an under-privaliged childhood. The baby would be better off not being born. Plus, chances are high that he or she will be murdered when they are older if they are poor and live in a bad part of town.

This is your theory, I assume. I will break it down. Correct me if I am wrong.

As you can see a large population of people support abortion. It cant be unacceptable and supported at the same time. Abortion is not a taboo to the supporters. Its not happening. So the only reason if they went dark is to cover other social issues.

Since their wasn't really a major crackdown of these "underground" aborters prior to Roe vs. Wade, thousands could have gone undocumented. And once the family learned of the woman's death from an abortion, the family usually hid it, for as the same reasons above, it was illegal and immoral and would tarnish the family name.

Please clear.

Here are the effects on abortion and crime: "One of the four major factors that decreased crime in the 1990s was abortion: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu.......... "The underlying theory rests on two premises: 1) unwanted children are at greater risk for crime, and 2) legalized abortion leads to a reduction in the number of unwanted births." :http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu......... "These children who were born because their mothers were denied an abortion were substantially more likely to be involved in crime, even when controlling for the income, age, education and health of the mother.":http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu.......... "For instance, homicide fell 25.9 percent in high-abortion states between 1985 and 1997 compared to an INCREASE of 4.1 percent in low-abortion states. Panel data estimates confirm the strong negative relationship between lagged abortion and crime. An analysis of arrest rates by age reveal that only arrests of those born after abortion legalization are affected by the law change.":http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu.......... There are so many great passages on this website to list all here. To have a better understanding of what this article is saying, read the article from the bottom of page 19 to the top of page 21. Also, look at the graphs throughout the article. Here is the article again: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu.......... And no, I can not prove the prohibiting abortion would just increase crime and poverty in the United States, but I can prove the legalizing abortion has decreased crime."

But does abortion cause this? What happens if Lady GaGa takes one in?

Not to mention, abortion most certainly increases poverty. If you are single with 3 kids and in poverty, and you end up pregnant, and are denied an abortion, that is another person in poverty.

So people shouldn't give birth if they are poor. Ok. Fair enough. But thats your problem. What makes the fetus the target?

One, your source's website name is pro-life. So voters, please immediately discredit the source as having bias. Two, one of the whole arguments of abortion is when a fetus is considered a human. Pro-Life people usually either say at conception or at some very early milestone. Pro-Choice and everyone else have a variety of different beliefs and thoughts on when a fetus is considered a human. The belief that life begins at conception is not a fact, and is one of the main subjects of this debate. Because if life does not begin at conception, but at some other date of pregnancy, than abortion before that date is not murder.

So? Give me a example of bias on the website. Also, what makes a human? Tell me this.

...fetus is a human will probably never be proven using a scientific study, so we must look at the legal aspect, and the legal aspect says no...Science? It is proven that DNA is tied to which speicies one is. Run a fetus thru a DNA test and it will come up as a human.

To save us from drawn out, character wasting link wars, the aspect of when a fetus feels pain is only one side of the when a fetus is a human debate. That is one opinion. We could debate or prove when a fetus has a heartbeat, or when it starts breathing, or when it can survive outside the mother's womb, or even at conception. So when a fetus feels pain is only one (but most important) side of the when a fetus feels pain debate. I want to see how you will handle this issue.

Response Point 1: Does it really need a source? This goes in favor of the pro-Life argument because I am conceding that only 39 women died of illegal abortions in 1972. But if you really want another source: http://www.abortionfacts.com....

Response Point 2: I will break this into two seperate points.
Point 1: Having a large population of people supporting abortion means that it can not be a taboo. Most tabooes are excepted to be bad by the vast majority of the population.

Point 2: Poor usually breed poor. And it is not just the normal poor. I am mainly talking about the people that live in the "bad part of town" and have been in jail several times, these types of people almost always breed poor children who turn out just like them.

Response Point 3: Think of it this way: Why does a family generally hid the fact that their child is gay? Because it would tarnish their child's and their family's reputation. This same thing happened even 4 or 5 years after Roe vs. Wade. Now you might be asking, "well everyone has to put a cause of death on a death certificate. There is no way someone can miss the big scar on the woman's body that shows an abortion. The number "39 in 1972" is well documented. There is no way around that. How could this be possible?" Well the families a lot of times would pay off the death certificate composer to change the cause of death. This means that the number of deaths from illegal abortion, even in 1972, could have been hundreds, maybe even thousands of people higher. Clear?

Response Point 4: You have not disproved this statement: " "These children who were born because their mothers were denied an abortion were substantially more likely to be involved in crime, even when controlling for the income, age, education and health of the mother.":http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu............. "For instance, homicide fell 25.9 percent in high-abortion states between 1985 and 1997 compared to an INCREASE of 4.1 percent in low-abortion states. Panel data estimates confirm the strong negative relationship between lagged abortion and crime. An analysis of arrest rates by age reveal that only arrests of those born after abortion legalization are affected by the law change.":http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu...; The decline in crime in the 1990s can be directly traced to the legalization of abortion in 1973 becuase the time frame is just accurate. You have not disproved this, and you need to provide counter-sources instead of denying the connection. And what does Lady Gaga have to do with this? That topic is completely irrelevant to this debate.

Response Point 5: Think of it this way: What is better: Having a fetus to "possibly" experience a slight moment of pain, or for the fetus to grow up into an adult that either most likely will live a life in extreme povery, or either be murdered or commit at least one murder? It is better for society because it decreases the murder rate. My proof is in Response Point 4.

Response Point 6: Looking at the title of the website; "pro life physicians". The word pro life is in the title of the website. This site is most certainly biased. Give me a scientific site that does not have bias in the title. And the question is not whether a fetus belongs in the human species or not, because it most certainly does, but the question is whether the fetus is alive and it's abortion can be considered murder at a certain date of pregnancy.

Response Point 7: Again, this point is irrelevant becuase a fetus is a human, but is it alive a certain date of pregnancy.

Response Point 8: What? Are you going to debate this or not?

Attack Point 1: Now, I am going to use the major pro-Life argument that abortion causes mental illness in the woman, and completely turn it against them. "Kendall said mental health problems seemed to be linked specifically to unwanted pregnancies rather than abortion.": http://www.msnbc.msn.com.... "An unwanted pregnancy may cause mental health problems, a woman may already have problems before becoming pregnant, or it could be a combination of the two, he added.": http://www.guardian.co.uk.... "The evidence shows though that whether these women have abortions - or go on to give birth - their risk of having mental health problems will not increase.": http://www.bbc.co.uk.... What I am trying to prove here is that not only does the unwanted pregnancy, not abortion causes the mental illness, but it is also true that aborting, say in the 10th week would stop the mental illness from getting worse. If the woman had to run the course of the pregnancy, the mental illness would be a lot worse.

Attack Point 2: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that in 1972 alone, 130,000 women obtained illegal or self-induced procedures, 39 of whom died.":http://www.guttmacher.org....... This means that at least 260,000 people broke the law by having an illegal abortion. That number only takes into account the woman and the doctor. There could be more the 2 involced in one abortion. The prohibition of abortion will again cause 130,000+ crimes. And they need solving. Police are already having a hard time controlling crime. Adding 130,000+ crimes with at least 260,000 people involved will make the police department a mess.

Attack Point 3: "In 1967, England liberalized its abortion law to permit any woman to have an abortion with the written consent of two physicians. More than 600 American women made the trip to the United Kingdom during the last three months of 1969 alone" "The year before the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, just over 100,000 women left their own state to obtain a legal abortion in New York City":http://www.guttmacher.org....... This means that is abortion is made illegal, then thousands of women will travel to a foreign country that legalizes abortion. In other words, they will bypass the law.

Attack Point 4: Here is more simple logic. "Say abortion is still illegal. Then the 1 million babies aborted each year would raise the unemployment rate tremendously (based on Guttermacher estimates on abortion, unemployment would be between 15-20%). More babies from the 1980s now=a higher unemployment and povery rate." And more simple logic. "Say abortion is still illegal. Than the 56 million babies that would have survived may pay more taxes, but since over 90% are in the bottom 47% of the population (money wise), they don't pay any taxes (Look it up if you doubt me about the 47% not paying taxes). Also, they are sucking up Government Welfare money. So they would increase the Government Debt, not decrease". (the statement "abortion is still illegal" means that Roe vs. Wade did not repeal abortion laws, and they are still in place to this very day).

==Conclusion==
I have now crushed the pro-Life argument. I am eager to see my opponent's responses to my argument.

well better. remember use that other abortion debate. ron will use it too so lets see how this goes.

also con he is wining as you need more contentions other then a fetus is a human, say it feels pain at 8 weeks (sources for that provided in other debate), but you have refuted his. but he is gonna refute yours. close and good debate

Reasons for voting decision: COn refuted better, and his one argument was really still standing at the end. conduct fr FF. Also con had superior sources. My argument vote was a counter VB as maikaru he never conceded. So it was because he had better arguments and a counter. Since I cannot fully counter his vote as some of those 3 points are legit I give S/G to con to finish the counter vote.